I love how they couldn't even have been bothered to come up with a rationale for why they had to drastically raise the election spending limit. "It was limiting free speech! Everyone's voice should be heard!"

“We conclude,” Roberts declared, “that the aggregate limits do little, if anything, to address [corruption] while seriously restricting participation in the democratic process.”

The comparisons it's making are purely economic, and the author comes right out and says as much, but it's still a fascinating take on the issue. I'm actually amazed I haven't seen the same comparison made previously.

it's a bit older (2005), but it's great ammunition should you need a reference point for dumb internet arguments that you won't win anyway because we all live in the land of HURR and DURR now.

There are some amazing things in there. One of the most "Well, duh!" is that the effect measured by the study was twice as pronounced for Republican senators as it was for Democrat senators, but that the effect was seen for all senators.

There are ancillary points too, like the small study they did to establish baseline political leanings for regions that showed every state they looked at was conservative, with a very slight leaning for states like Massachusetts and a massive bent for states like Arkansas (which would surprise no one, but is still neat to see quantified like that).

It is only if continuing emissions are going to lead to something more, something else possibly worse, happening that there’s any economic case at all for limiting them. As it happens I think that there are worse things that might happen and that there is a very good case indeed for limiting future emissions. But this finding, that West Antarctica is going to melt no matter what just isn’t a valid reason to limit future emissions. The damage is already done, see?

"As it happens I think it can get worse and that we should do something about it. But this is already as bad as it's gonna get and we shouldn't do anything about it."

At this point, saying that not preventing climate change is a good idea from an economic point of view is about the equivalent of saying that not preventing the Holocaust is a good idea from a racial purity point of view.